There are some terms used which I think are quite important when deling in these matters. The following terms I believe to be interesting and would colour them blueJudicial review, Leave to appeal, Out of jurisdiction, Settled by agreement, Submission,These terms I believe to be vital when dealing with these cases would be colouredin red are Oral hearing, Paper hearing, PHE form, Struck out, Supplementary submission, TAS1, Want of prosecution,

Then look at this section Want of prosecution Something which must be done. A tribunal may strike out an appeal for want of prosecution. For example, where the appellant is asked for further information but does not produce it.

Why does it not also say the Board at HMRC when it has been asked for further information but does not produce it????? Is this taking a side look into are case’s.

The link you've given us is to a Glossary of Terms relating - I think - to complaints that we, the claimants, make. Are you saying that these are the sections we need to pay attention to: Judicial review, Leave to appeal, Out of jurisdiction, Settled by agreement, Submission and that the following should be of particular interest: Oral hearing, Paper hearing, PHE form, Struck out, Supplementary submission, TAS1, Want of prosecution?

There's several things I am not clear about. Firstly, an 'Oral hearing' can only take place with what HMRC term an appeal, right? It's not the same as what we would call an appeal. Therefore I can't see how those of us locked in dispute (HMRC's term for what we'd call an appeal!) can benefit from an 'oral hearing'. We should do, but we don't.

In fact, as I look down that list, I get the impression that it all relates to appeals and tribunals, doesn't it - something which those of us with overpayments can't have?

Sorry, Roy - I can sense you're onto something and are really struggling to help us here, but I really, truly can't see it. Is there any other way you can explain this, please?

The last three paragraphs from 'Then look at this section', I can't really understand. I think you're highlighting double-standards (HMRC are particularly adept at that)when a tribunal abandons an appeal because the appellant doesn't provide enough info, and I think you're using this to say, if this happens in appeal tribunals when claimants can't produce evidence, why doesn't it happen in court 'debt recovery' cases when HMRC themselves don't produce evidence? One law for them, another for us?

I'm struggling to understand this, as with all things Tax Credit. Am I getting warm, Roy?

Any chance of explaining this in some other way?

Morpheus : Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

Hi Ali, Roy - I ask the same really as Ali. If the term "Judicial Review" could help us, am I correct in thinking this is only applicable AFTER the Ombudsman has failed to help a claimant? I did look at this possibility, however, its complex and expensive. Any chance of a class action or something similar?Thanks Roy u could help us here.

Interesting you should bring that up, Rosie. Some time ago the Child Poverty Action Group were going to bring a class action on behalf of TC victims (TCC hadn't formed then), but they abandoned it because they apparently feared what would happen for all the people who had paid up if overpayments which hadn't been repaid were written off.

Now, though, that doesn't apply - or doesn't seem to - because of the illegal recovery/incorrect procedures issue and the claim that some people who have already repaid are going to get money back. So the very fact that people are getting refunds negates the above argument that seeks to distinguish between the Already-Paids and the Fighting-Not-To's.

My guess is that the TCC needs to put the best case we can to the CPAG to revive interest in the class action. What say you and I put our heads together on this, and get something written for them? In fact, what say all of us on the Forum pitch in? Let's put together something for the Child Poverty Action Group inviting them to revive legal action. I can talk to a Parliamentary candidate I know who has links with a Human Rights lawyer and see what angle we could take.

This campaign needs to move on various fronts:

Increase publicity through the media and increase public awareness of the issues. (This will spark off public interest and eventually fuel a high-profile campaign which will snowball until we get results.)

Reach Casualties across Britain and motivate and empower people to challenge, dispute and complain unless satisfied they are in the wrong. This in itself will highlight to HMRC and government how many unhappy people there are and that the system needs to change, as well as tipping the cost/benefit scales in favour of a write-off.

Launch some kind of legal action or link in with larger, more influential (with more capital) organisations to do this.

Cross-party lobbying of MPs to get law, policy and practice changed.

Consultation with HMRC (where they will listen and ACT) to promote good practice and reduce the power imbalance so that we can have fairer treatment.

Recruitment of current HMRC and ex-HMRC workers who - without placing themselves at risk - can help increase HMRC's awareness of the devastating effects of their policy, help with advice on how to deal with these complex systems, approach their managers in support of reform, and (if very brave) whistleblow at bad practice. Or at least just work with the current guidance and give our cases just that little bit more of your attention!! (and get that Discretion HMRC are rumoured to have exercised a bit more!)

This isn't an exhaustive list.

The main TCC activists can't successfully do this without help, even burning the midnight oil as Paula and many others do. We have a forum full of people who care enough about injustices within the system to spend valuable time reading and adding to these threads and offering valuable suggestions. We need volunteers to help take all these things forward! Much of it can be done from home!!

Do I see some volunteers out there? You know where I am!!

Morpheus : Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

Judicial review in English LawJudicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which English courts supervise the exercise of public power. A person who feels that an exercise of such power by, say, a government minister, the local council or a statutory tribunal, is unlawful, perhaps because it has violated his or her rights, may apply to the Administrative Court (a division of the High Court) for judicial review of the decision and have it set aside (quashed) and possibly obtain damages. A court may also make mandatory orders or injunctions to compel the authority to do its duty or to stop it from acting illegaly.

Breach of Natural JusticeThe rule against biasThe first basic rule of natural justice is that nobody may be a judge in his own case. Any person that makes a judicial decision - and this includes e.g. a decision of a public authority on a request for a license - must not have any personal interest in the outcome of the decision. If such interest is present, the decision maker must be disqualified even if no actual bias can be shown, i.e. it is not demonstrated that the interest has influenced the decision. The test as to whether the decision should be set aside is whether "a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias So surely the 'certificate of debt' is a breach?

The right to a fair hearingWhether or not a person was given a fair hearing of his case will depend on the circumstances and the type of the decision to be made. The minimum requirement is that the person gets the chance to present his case. I know from personal experience they have breached that one too

Procedural improprietyA decision suffers from procedural impropriety if in the process of its making the procedures prescribed by statute have not been followed or if the 'rules of natural justice' have not been adhered to. Breach 3 they have not followed the law of natural justice

Unlike illegality and procedural impropriety, the courts under this head look at the merits of the decision, rather than at the procedure by which it was arrived at or the legal basis on which it was founded. The question to ask is whether the decision "makes sense". In many circumstances listed under "illegality", the decision may also be considered irrational. Breach 4 'irrational' 'makes sense'

IrrationalityUnder Lord Diplock's classification, a decision is irrational if it is "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question could have arrived at it." This standard is also known as Wednesbury unreasonableness, after the decision in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, where it was first imposed. Breach 5 - hmrc act outrageously and out of accepted moral standards

"The woman who has taken on the government works as an investment consultant from a bedroom in a large detached house in North London suburbia... But Altmann is no ordinary family woman....Stern says: 'She's a fine person. I'm a great admirer.'...For the last five years Altmann has been working on a pro bono basis for workers whose pension schemes collapsed before they had reached retirement ... Although 125,000 people are believed to be affected, only about 800 have so far received any financial help."

Morpheus : Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make, nobody hear's of it.Only the affected. Sorry, but there are many naive people whom understandibly think the government bodies are in place to do the 'right thing' They are not.The government will screw you to the floor if votes do not count.

The government will squash any controversy any way they can, because it makes sense to them unless votes are involved.

According to 'government figures' 90% of voters are happy with tax credits.But of course they always will sway stats in their favour, strong labour seats are not affected, by design of the system. Vunerable labour seats are an issue hence the inheritance tax increase threshold. Tax credits will not even be a an issue